Ramjan Ali vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9185 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6045/2021

1. Ramjan Ali S/o Mohammad Baksh, Aged About 31 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Sherani Abad Chc, Block Didwana District Nagaur.

2. Neetu Verma D/o Daulat Verma, Aged About 37 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Khakhooli, Block Didwana District Nagaur.

3. Prakash Chand S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 31 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Dayalpura, Block Didwana District Nagaur.

4. Sunil Kumar S/o Premchand Swami, Aged About 27 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Beri Kallan, Block Didwana District Nagaur.

5. Mehboob Khan S/o Sikandar Khan, Aged About 32 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Khunkhuna, Block Didwana District Nagaur.

6. Gopal Sain S/o Arjun Lal, Aged About 32 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Sudrasan, Block Didwana District Nagaur.

7. Mahendra Singh S/o Kishor Singh, Aged About 35 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Akod, Block Didwana District Nagaur.

8. Pratap Ram Jakhad S/o Tara Ram, Aged About 36 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Lunsara, Block Jayal District Nagaur.

9. Herman Ram S/o Manni Ram, Aged About 25 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Dugoli, Block Jayal District Nagaur.

10. Kaml Kishor Jat S/o Luna Ram, Aged About 30 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Jalniyasar, Block Jayal District Nagaur.

11. Om Prakash Harjiram S/o Nenu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Jhareli, Block Jayal District Nagaur.

12. Dharamveer Meena S/o Mali Ram Meena, Aged About 30 Years, At Present Working As Computer Operator At Phc Chandwaji, Block Amer District Jaipur.

                                           (2 of 3)                    [CW-6045/2021]


                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                    Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Additional Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

6. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.

7. Rajasthan Medical Relief Society Nagaur, Through Its Secretary.

8. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur.

9. Rajasthan Medical Relief Society Jaipur, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

09/04/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the

respondents to consider their representations in light of the

circular dated 13.01.2003 and 12.05.2003 and also in light of the

judgment dated 19.05.2016, passed by this Court in Anand

Purohit & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.8988/2014), expeditiously, in accordance with law.

(3 of 3) [CW-6045/2021]

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the

petitioners to file a comprehensive representation, along with the

certified copy of the order instant and a photostat copy of the

earlier representation and the circulars and the aforesaid

judgment relied upon, within a period of three weeks from today

before the competent authority.

3. In case, representations are so addressed, the competent

authority shall decide the same, in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten weeks

from the receipt thereof.

4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representations has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representations in a

particular manner.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 133-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)